
^o* ••ate; «fev* :«&"•* *W •- 








• % A* * 









^0 











***** 



**\.i'J*.*<t. /.^Ur.°o <**.!*&/% /.^ 



^of 



oY 




^<y 



v^> °°* ^y . . v^ 
































,<* ..i 



- J' ^. '-J- 






« a^^^. 



,^ "^ 



.A V ^.. 



SPEECH 



JOSIAH KANDALL, ESQ., 



OF PHILADELPHIA, 

Delivered at Chambersburg, August 6, 1856, at the request of the 
Democratic State Convention, of Pennsylvania. 



In obedience to the request of the Democratic State Conven- 
tion, of Pennsylvania, I claim the attention of my fellow-citizens 
for a short time. I am aware that I have received this courtesy 
because I have heretofore been a member of the Old Line "Whig 
party. 

In 1824-5, the Democratic and Whig parties were separated 
by no principle, but were divided upon the question, whether 
Gen. Jackson was entitled to be elected President of the United 
States. In the progress of time, during the thirty years of the 
existence of the Whig party, several important principles were 
presented, and the two parties became distinct and independent 
of each other upon questions of public policy. These were : 

1. The renewal of the Charter of the Bank of the United 
States. 

2. The Sub-Treasury. 

3. The Distribution of the Proceeds of the Public Lands. 

4. The Tariff. 

A "National Bank" was abandoned by the Democratic party, 
under the veto of Gen. Jackson in 1832, and by the Whig party 
in 1844. 

" The Sub-Treasury," the cardinal measure of Mr. Van Buren, 
was opposed by the Whig party, has fought itself into public 
favor, and now no one wishes to disturb it. 



"The Distribution of the Proceeds of the Public Lands," has 
been superceded by the debt created by the Mexican war. 

" The Tariff" no longer remains either a political or geogra- 
phical question. During the last Congress, the "State Rights" 
men of the South and the Republican Abolitionists of the North, 
united against Pennsylvania, without distinction of party, to 
reduce the tariff below its present standard. 

I do not include in this category the question of Internal Im- 
provement by the Federal Government, or the Acquisition of New 
Territory. All parties in the West are in favor of the exercise of 
the first power ; the second was determined by the election of Mr. 
Polk in 1841, when a new feature in the Republic was developed, 
that our p3ople collectively are anxious to increase the public 
domain in the same manner as individuals are anxious to increase 
their private property. 

If there remains any practical disputable principle, which con- 
stituted an issue between the Democratic and the old Whig 
parties, I do not know it. 

The Whig party has performed its duty, and ha3 had its day. 
It has been prostrated by the organization of the American 
party, or the Kxow-Nothinj Order. They, and not the Old 
Line Whigs, have been the executioners. They have renounced 
their old cognomen, laid aside their old principles, and substituted 
in their place a new name and a new creed never before recog- 
nized by Clay, Webster, Sergeant, or their noble compeers. 

I know there are many intelligent and patriotic men who 
cherish the hope that the Whig party can again be resusciated, 
but the hope is delusive, and it is pernicious, because it deprives 
the country of a large portion of intellect and worth, which 
ought to be brought into public service. In the history of our 
republic, no party broken down has ever yet been re-organized. 
The fate of the Federal and Anti-Masonic parties establishes this 
fact. There is not, at this time, a Whig member of the popular 
branch of Congress elected by a Whig vote. There is not a 
member of the Legislature of Pennsylvania elected by a _ Whig 
vote. There is not a member of the Councils of the City of 
Philadelphia elected by a Whig vote. For the last two years, 
with but two exceptions, wherever the scattered members of the 
Whig party have met in council, they have felt their position, 
and have, therefore, wisely abstained from forming a ticket to be 
voted for at the polls. In New Hampshire and Massachusetts 
they rallied at the polls, and the result was paucity of numbers 
and total defeat. But what good would be derived from the re- 
organization and triumph of the old Whig party? They do 
not want a National Bank. They do not desire the repeal of 



the Sub-Treasury. The most ardent friends of the tariff do not 
ask for the re-establishmcnt of the high tariff of 1828, or even of 
1842 ; but all they ask is, that the tariff shall stand where it was 
placed in 1846 by the casting vote of the Vice President, Mr. 
Dallas. All the old issues have been settled, and, as a natural 
consequence, new parties have sprung up, and new issues have been 
formed. The Order of Know-Nothings have violated the letter 
and spirit of the VI. Article of the Constitution of the United 
States, which declares that "no religious test shall ever be 
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the 
United States." They have established secret societies, secret 
oaths and obligations. With these principles the Whig party, in 
its days of power and numerical strength, had no sympathy or 
affiliation, and there is no part of the Union where the Whigs 
were more inflexible in opposing these political heresies than in 
the State of Pennsylvania. 

In 1845, when the Whig party met in the City of Philadelphia, 
after the defeat of Mr. Clay, the duty of opening the meeting and 
setting forth their principles was committed to me. I held in my 
hand at that meeting, the charter of Rhode Island, granted to 
Roger Williams, a Baptist minister, which contains the broadest and 
most comprehensive declaration of religious liberty and equal- 
ity ever yet penned. I read its eloquent and energetic platform 
and said', "this is the doctrine of the Whig party," and 
pointing to the ruins of the Roman Catholic Church of St. 
Augustine, burnt during the disgraceful riots of 1844, and which 
lay within a few yards of the place of meeting, I added, "there 
is its desecration." There is not a nook nor corner in the vast 
region of our country which does not contain old line Whigs 
who are willing to stand by the Constitution and the Union. 
But their numerical strength is far exceeded by their patriotism, 
talents, and public spirit. This is the body to which I have been 
attached, and I feel the deepest interest in the course tshey shall 
pursue. 

The Republican party is sectional, and its success must, in 
my judgment, lead to a severance of the Union. I do not believe 
that the great mass of that party anticipate this result ; but if it 
should be consummated, their regret will be no equivalent for the 
damning injury thereby inflicted upon this great Republic. I 
appeal to every old line Whig in the Union to avert this calamity. 
The South cannot and will not remain in the Union, unless their 
rights shall be guaranteed to them. If we were in the same situa- 
tion, we would demand our rights in tones as imperative and man- 
datory as those which are now used by ©u=r Southern brethrea. 
How is this great evil to be avoided ? I answer, by the elec- 



tion of Mr. Buchanan. Every vote given to him is a check to 
the progress of the Republican party. I know there are many 
Whigs who approve of the administration of Millard Fillmore, 
and are willing to trust him again. Every vote given to Mr.' 
Fillmore increases the danger of the success of Mr. Fremont. 
Every vote given to Mr. Buchanan potentially seals the fate of 
Mr. Fremont. But Millard Fillmore in 1848, '50, and '52, 
is _ not the Millard Fillmore of 1856. When he was elected 
Vice President in 1848, — when he became the acting President 
in 1850, — and when he was a candidate for re-nomination by the 
Whig Convention in Baltimore, in 1852, he professed to be a 
Whig — nothing more, nothing less. The Native American party 
at that time was in existence and proclaimed principles in terms 
far less exceptionable than those now avowed by the Know- 
Nothing party. But Mr. Fillmore then had neither part nor lot 
with them, he stood upon the ground occupied by Clay, Web- 
ster and Sergeant. What is he now? He has been initiated 
into the Order of Know-Nothings, taken upon himself its secret 
oaths and obligations, and this at a time when his friends were 
presenting his claims to be elected President of the United 
States. ^ He has since become the candidate and accepted the 
nomination of the American or Know-Nothing National Con- 
vention. In a correspondence between the Order of the United 
Americans of the State of New York and him, under the date of 
July 25th, 1856, they say : — 

"Both from your past official acts, and from the assurances 
and views expressed by you on many occasions, as having similar 
sentiments in reference to those subjects, to them of so much 
seeming importance, the successful establishment of these princi- 
ples, as the fundamental rules of our Government, they believe 
essential for its tranquillity, and a continued progress in the 
development of all its greatness." 

Mr. Fillmore in his answer, dated 29th of July, 1856, acquiesces 
in this statement and replies — 

" My position before the country is well known, admitting nei- 
ther of disguise nor equivocation. I am the candidate of the Ameri- 
can party." 

Mr. Fillmore here proclaims himself the American candidate, 
and adopts the creed, oaths and obligations of that party without 
"disguise or equivocation." In the Secret Lodge of the Order of 
Know-Nothings he has sworn that he will neither vote for nor ap- 
point a Roman Catholic to office. If elected and inaugurated Presi- 
dent of the United States, he would be compelled to swear that he 
would require " no religious test as a qualification to any office or 
public trust under the United Stat-ee." I ask, under auch cir- 



cumstances, which oath would he keep, and which oath would he 
violate ? I desire to treat Mr. Fillmore fairly, but all experience 
tells us, that in such cases, the candidate if elected will pre- 
serve his political allegiance and forget his Constitutional in- 
junction. Are the Old Line Whigs prepared to endorse Mr. 
Fillmore, thus presented by himself for their suffrages ? 
I know no difference between an individual joining the Order 
and giving his vote to sustain its candidate, except that the 
latter course is more effective in carrying out the tenets of 
this party. 

The friends of Mr. Fillmore have assailed Mr. Buchanan for his 
Ostend communication. Without admitting or denying the sound- 
ness of the doctrine therein contained, I would remark that the 
correspondence of Mr. Everett, as Secretary of State under Mr. 
Fillmore, after the death of Mr. Webster, relative to Cuba, _ is 
more offensive, and ought to be more obnoxious to the criti- 
cism of conservative men than the Ostend Letter ; and it should 
be remembered that the diplomatic manifesto of Mr. Everett 
was issued under the immediate supervision of Mr. Fillmore and 
his Cabinet. . . 

Mr. Everett is probably the best educated statesman now living ; 
he is an erudite scholar and a sound patriot. When in Congress, 
he took higher ground in favor of the South on the subject of slavery, 
than any Northern statesman had ever done before, or has ever 
done since. One thing is certain, any opinion upon International 
Law promulgated by him, is entitled to respect. Mr. Buchanan 
has been in public life upwards of forty years, he has filled the 
highest offices which his own State could confer upon him. He 
has occupied the first seat in the Cabinet during a most eventful 
epoch ; and he has twice represented his country at the Courts of 
the two first nations in Europe. His private character stands 
without blot or blemish and beyond rebuke or reproach ; and it is 
a high eulogium upon his public life, that the " Ostend Letter' is 
the only act which is designated by his opponents as the ground of 
attack. 

On the subject contained in these diplomatic documents, I have 
not changed my former sentiments. I desire, ardently, the acquisi- 
tion of Cuba ; no child can look at the map without seeing it ought 
to belong to those who own the Gulf of Mexico ; but unless we 
can honestly obtain it, I would leave it where it is. We have paid 
for every foot of ground that we have ever acquired, and unless 
Cuba can be obtained in the same manner that Louisiana, Florida, 
the recentlv acquired Territory from Mexico, and Texas, I am 
utterly opposed to any other mode of bringing it into the Union. 
The mother country who taunts us with the charge of being 



anxious to increase our Territory, is the most insatiate cormorant 
among the nations of the earth, has never paid for a foot of 
ground that she ever held, but has always wrested it from 
the weak and powerless who have been unable to protect their 
dominions. 

There are many Old Line Whigs who are attached to their cog- 
nomen, and dislike changing it — this is an overscrupulous nicety. 
They must change their name — they must recognize the title of an 
American Know-Nothing, Republican, or a Democrat. If they 
refuse to elect either of these names, they must retire from all 
participation in public affairs. Gov. Seward is reported to have 
said in caucus, during the present session, of Congress, that he cared 
nothing for names, but that he looked to principles alone. This 
remark showed he had a clear head and a sound judgment, and 
was worthy of a better cause. 

I hold that the Territory ceded to us by Mexico was purchased 
by common treasure. The fifteen Slave States contributed their 
portion of the fund as well as the then fifteen Free States. Terri- 
tory should stand on the same footing as admitted States, and the 
right of the people to hold Slaves or not, as they please, in the 
Territory, ought to be commensurate with the right of the people 
as they exist in the thirty-one States. There can be no just ground 
for any discrimination between the two cases. New Territory is 
surely not more sacred than the old thirteen States, or the present 
thirty-one States. The will of a majority prevails in the cases last 
enumerated, and the same orthodox principle should prevail in the 
newly-acquired Territory. 

What is the doctrine of the Wilmot Proviso ? It is the sixteen 
Free States declaring to the fifteen Slave States — you are part 
owners of this Territory ; you have shed your blood and expended 
your treasure in acquiring it, but you shall have no share in 
its enjoyment or profits. Strip it of its trappings, and it 
amounts to this : there are thirty-one stockholders in a cor- 
poration, and sixteen say to fifteen, it is true you are part 
owners and have contributed to the purchase of our common 
property, but you shall have no share in the enjoyment of its 
privileges or the receipts of its profits. Such a doctrine is subver- 
sive of every principle of justice and equality, and cannot be 
sustained. 

I am not the advocate of opinions that are new to the Whig 
party of Pennsylvania. At a Whig meeting held in September, 
1850, at the Chinese Museum, in Philadelphia, I offered a resolu- 
tion congratulating the Nation upon the restoration of peace 
and quietude to the country by tVe passage of the Compromise 
Acts of that year. It was unanimously adopted, and I then 



laid down the same principles •which I am now endeavoring to 
inculcate. 

In November, 1850, the great Union Meeting was held at the 
same place, over which John Sergeant presided. Among others, 
I again enforced the same principles. On the 27th of February, 
1851, a pure Whig meeting was called to request the repeal of 
the Act of the Legislature of 1847, which closed the public jails 
of this Commonwealth against the custody of Fugitive Slaves. At 
that meeting Samuel Breck, second to no man in the country in 
intelligence and patriotism, presided. I again promulgated the 
same doctrines, and they were again endorsed by the Whig party 
assembled on that occasion. 

In 1819-20 when the Missouri Compromise was adopted, the 
North, without distinction of party, held diiferent sentiments. 
There is no real discrepance between the two attitudes when 
rightly understood. In 1820 the South adopted the Missouri 
Compromise, and never abandoned it until after 1850, when 
it was abrograted by what is generally understood as the 
Compromise Acts of Congress of that year. During the dis- 
cussion of those measures, the South upon the amendment of Mr. 
Turney, of Tennessee, endeavored to continue that Compromise, by 
extending it to the Pacific, but the North rejected it. On the other 
hand, the Free-soil party have never abided by the Compromise of 
1820. They opposed in 1821 the admission of Missouri, and in 
1825, the admission of Arkansas. They now go back, and pro- 
claim the Wilmot Proviso as their standard, which is a direct abroga- 
tion of the Missouri Compromise, and declares all territory whether 
North or South of 36 degrees 30 minutes, shall be free. 

If the' South were now willing to prohibit Slavery in the newly- 
acquired territory, I would rejoice at the declaration ; but they are 
not willing. They assert their rights, and I am in favor of an en- 
re and cordial recognition of those rights. If Maryland or any 
o ther Slave State should abolish slavery, it would give me unal- 
loyed pleasure ; but it does not follow, that I would therefore 
be in favor of compelling such Slave States against their will to 
abolish it. 

These are some of the reasons why I invoke every Old Line 
Whig in Pennsylvania to support Mr. Buchanan. The triumph of 
the Democratic party in Pennsylvania, in October next, would 
place his election beyond doubt. It would remove the last glim- 
mering hope of the opposition, restore peace and quietude to the 
country, and for one generation at least, put at rest the present 
agitation on the question of slavery. The Old Line Whigs of 
Pennsylvania possess the power to accomplish this great result ; 
the responsibility rests upon them, and I have no doubt but that 



8 

the [draft which is made upon their patriotism will be promptly 
accepted, and that the great Keystone State will once more come 
to the rescue, and do as she has done heretofore, put down all sec- 
tional feeling, and at the ballot-box perpetuate the Union, which 
has so long been the pride and admiration of every friend of civil 
and religious liberty throughout the world. 

IN SENATE. Tuesday, August 6th, 1850. 

Admission of California. 

Mr. Turney moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert as 
follows : 

" When it shall be made to appear to the President of the United States, by 
satisfactory evidence, that the people inhabiting the Territory of California, (or 
so much of said Territory, as is comprised within the limits proposed by this bill 
as the boundaries of the State of California,) assembled in Convention, have 
agreed to a line not further South than the parallel of 36° 30' North latitude, as 
the Southern boundary of said State, and limited the representation of said State 
to one Representative until after the next census of the inhabitants of the United 
States, the said State of California may be admitted into the Union, upon the 
Proclamation of the President, upon an equal footing with the original States. 

" Sec. — . And be it further enacted, That the line of 3Go 30' of North latitude, 
known as the Missouri Compromise line, as defined by the eighth section of an 
Act, entitled 'An Act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a 
Constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the 
Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in 
certain Territories,' approved March 6th, 1820, be, and the same is hereby declar- 
ed to extend to the Pacific Ocean : and the said eighth section, together with the 
Compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and declared to be in full force 
and binding for the future organization of the Territories of the United States, 
in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally 
adopted." 

The question was stated to be upon the amendment of Mr. Turney, and, being 
taken by yeas and nays, was rejected by the following vote : 

Yeas — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, 
Davis, of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, 
Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, and Yulee — 24. 

Nays — Messrs. Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Clarke, Cooper, Davis, 
of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickenson, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Dodge, of Iowa, 
Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Norris, Phelps, Seward, 
Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Upham, Wales, Walker, Whit- 
comb, and Winthrop — 32. Congressional Globe, 1st Sess. 31st Cong., Vol. 21, 
Part 2nd, page 1532. 

When this vote was taken Mr. Clay was absent from indisposi- 
tion, Mr. Webster had been appointed Secretary of State and 
Mr. Winthrop was substituted in his stead. Both Mr. Clay and 
Mr. Webster had acted with the majority, and from their known 
sentiments would, if present, have voted against Mr. Turney's 
amendment. 



W46 




%<* 








\S 





<ft» A o«TSS8ilHl« ^pS 




^b **hl* A 




ip*. 




^ 




•^o« 




.0* 










* *^ * 



►**« 




►*<* 




W 




'ft, *■»■ oV^^^lL^- *^r^ "-/^Im^W *fts A oV^<^ll^« ^ A 








A v , o » « 









A % ^o-o, / <> 1 



